New vs old sensor tech?

[TE-28]

I've recently rekindled my interest in photography so I dug out the trusty old work horse... my Canon 5Dii. It's still fine for a lot of what I do but I think id like to come in to more current times and go mirrorless but I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos? As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance. Not really interested in stacked full frame info as I'm pretty positive there's no comparison really. Just trying to gather info to help me decide on which route I'd like to go in my purchase.

Thanks in advance for taking your time to read and reply.

 

[FingerPainter]

I've recently rekindled my interest in photography so I dug out the trusty old work horse... my Canon 5Dii. It's still fine for a lot of what I do but I think id like to come in to more current times and go mirrorless but I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos? As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance. Not really interested in stacked full frame info as I'm pretty positive there's no comparison really. Just trying to gather info to help me decide on which route I'd like to go in my purchase.

Thanks in advance for taking your time to read and reply.

There are very few cameras with stacked APS-C sensors. The only one I am aware of is the Fujifilm X-H2S.

The Fujifilm's sensor has more pixels (26MP to 21MP), and higher "Photographic Dynamic Range" (PDR) when fully exposed at ISOs below 1250. Above ISO 1250, the 5DII has a negligible advantage in PDR.

Despite these advantages in pixel count and low-ISO PDR, the X-H2S is likely to produce less sharp images when the two cameras are used with equally sharp lenses. The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage. The Fujifilm's images will also have a lower Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) when fully exposed at all ISO levels.

The Fujifilm will have more advanced video capabilities.

Canon's EOS R7 is an APS-C camera but it's sensor is not stacked. It has similar noise and DR performance to the Fujifilm at ISO's below 500, (and has even better PDR at base ISO) but is about 1/2 stop behind the Fujifilm's PDR above ISO 400 and about 1/2 stop behind the 5DII from ISO 1600 and up.

 

[Frankie J]

Your post got me thinking...
So, I found this, a comparison between your 5DII and my Z50.



https://camerareviews.com/compare/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-z50/




If you are asking as a prelude to shopping, the Z50 is a great buy as well.

 

[FingerPainter]

Your post got me thinking...
So, I found this, a comparison between your 5DII and my Z50.

https://camerareviews.com/compare/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-z50/

That site is pretty much a joke. Most of its comparison criteria are next to meaningless, and it gets key facts wrong.

The Z50 is a better camera because it is smaller and lighter? What about if you want a full set of controls and want some inertia to dampen camera motion blur? Then larger and heavier is a better camera.

Contrary to what they clam, being a mirrorless camera gives no advantage to image quality.

The Z50 does not have a DxOMark sensor score of 97. I don't think it has been given any DxOMark sensor score. Sensor scores of around 97 are only seen on recent FF cameras, - not a DX camera like the Z50. The sensor in the Z50 is very similar to those in the D7500 and the D500, which get DxOMark scores of 86 and 84, respectively. According to DxOMark, the 5DII actually has a slightly better image SNR than the D7500. Despite that, the Z50 has a bigger advantage in dynamic range.

The review says "Considering the optics, the Nikon Z50 is the better choice..." This is more nonsense. The only optics in the imaging path are the lens. You can get better and worse lenses for either camera.

If you are asking as a prelude to shopping, the Z50 is a great buy as well.

In most respects the Z50 is a slightly better camera than the 5DII, with the exception of ergonomics and build quality, but it is not so much better as camerareviews.com claims.

 

[OpticsEngineer]

if you click on the link below, it should take you to a comparison of the 5DII, Z50, Fuji X-S10 and Canon M6II. You can judge for yourself how they all compare with RAW. What I see if above ISO 3200 the 5DII is getting really noisy compared to the newer sensors.

The 5DII JPEGs look really soft. I would not look at those for comparing sensor tech.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 

[TOTodd]

I've recently rekindled my interest in photography so I dug out the trusty old work horse... my Canon 5Dii. It's still fine for a lot of what I do but I think id like to come in to more current times and go mirrorless but I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos? As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance. Not really interested in stacked full frame info as I'm pretty positive there's no comparison really. Just trying to gather info to help me decide on which route I'd like to go in my purchase.

Thanks in advance for taking your time to read and reply.

You don’t need to bother clicking on the links other repliers posted. Your 5Dii is capable of outstanding image quality. Go out and shoot!

 

[sybersitizen]

... I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos?

Stacked sensors increase processing speed compared to non-stacked sensors. Is that the kind of improvement you want?

As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance.

If performance means speed, a stacked APS-C sensor could offer improvements. That could give you faster frame rates, faster AF, and similar things. Otherwise, I don't think there's much evidence to support the assumption about all aspects, like image quality. If you want to move to mirrorless APS-C, you should probably identify some specific reasons for doing it.

 

[tbcass]

I've recently rekindled my interest in photography so I dug out the trusty old work horse... my Canon 5Dii. It's still fine for a lot of what I do but I think id like to come in to more current times and go mirrorless but I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos? As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance. Not really interested in stacked full frame info as I'm pretty positive there's no comparison really. Just trying to gather info to help me decide on which route I'd like to go in my purchase.

Thanks in advance for taking your time to read and reply.

There have been 4 major technological advances since your 5Dii was introduced.

1. On-sensor analog to digital conversion which resulted in a significant improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio (less noise).

2. Back Side Illumination (BSI) which further reduced the noise.

3. Stacked sensors which greatly speeded up sensor readout resulting in faster burst rates and less rolling shutter.

4. On-sensor PDAF/Dual Pixel autofocus which spreads focus points over a much wider area and, combined with faster processors, greatly improves the subject tracking abilities.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Your post got me thinking...
So, I found this, a comparison between your 5DII and my Z50.

https://camerareviews.com/compare/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-z50/

That site is pretty much a joke. Most of its comparison criteria are next to meaningless, and it gets key facts wrong.

The Z50 is a better camera because it is smaller and lighter? What about if you want a full set of controls and want some inertia to dampen camera motion blur? Then larger and heavier is a better camera.

Contrary to what they clam, being a mirrorless camera gives no advantage to image quality.

The Z50 does not have a DxOMark sensor score of 97. I don't think it has been given any DxOMark sensor score. Sensor scores of around 97 are only seen on recent FF cameras, - not a DX camera like the Z50. The sensor in the Z50 is very similar to those in the D7500 and the D500, which get DxOMark scores of 86 and 84, respectively. According to DxOMark, the 5DII actually has a slightly better image SNR than the D7500. Despite that, the Z50 has a bigger advantage in dynamic range.

The review says "Considering the optics, the Nikon Z50 is the better choice..." This is more nonsense. The only optics in the imaging path are the lens. You can get better and worse lenses for either camera.

If you are asking as a prelude to shopping, the Z50 is a great buy as well.

In most respects the Z50 is a slightly better camera than the 5DII, with the exception of ergonomics and build quality, but it is not so much better as camerareviews.com claims.

FingerPainter ..

Do you know where the chart in this post originally came from ???

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67053014

It was also posted on TheWanderingLens, but he did not say where it originated either.

It seems up to date since it includes the Z9 (w/ shortest read/write time).

 

[bastibe]

Exactly. Newer sensors show less noise (particularly at high ISO), focus faster (mirrorless only), and shoot more images per second.

If however you are satisfied with the noise levels of the 5D2, and mostly shoot slow subjects in good light, or on a tripod, image quality won't be much different.

 

[Frankie J]

and when one wants to push the shadows, I'll take the Z50.
The 5DII has exactly two advantages, two.
Battery life advantage like all DSLRs.
Shallower DoF.
Every other metric that relates to image quality, both still and video, again, the Z50.
The files from the newer camera are superior.
Feels GREAT in the hand, Z optics are better than 2008 Canon glass, 400 grams lighter for all day carry, less inertial impact from internal mechanisms means less need for greater body mass (lenses, vlogging plate add additional heft), raw files are much more malleable, a world of native and adaptable glass, MUCH more travel friendly, app friendly (perfect time sync, GPS, etc.), silent electronic shutter option, ...
So lame, quickly found article aside, there are many options for the OPs area of query.
AND, I've never lost a job due to not waving a Leica around.

 

[crashpc]

Great answers, I will add different one.

You really don't want a stacked sensor. I mean, all these superlatives and snakeoilish terms and buzzwords i have fun with ( military grade, overengineered, spacecraft tech, seamless, nanosmooth) have no meaning for real world. Even with the technology, here and there you can get limiting or bad product.

For that reason, I would look at the partucular product, and its performance. Not so much for underlying technology. That one can be secondary.

5DII is still great camera, and can do a lot. No issue with it. But in comparison, it is long in the tooth, and more modern cameras can do a lot more. Especially in difficult lighting scenarios thanks to in body image stabilisation, and sensors that have less noise.

On top of that, processing got much further, and so photos shot at ISO6400 can be perfectly usable for most of the work.

My personal opinion is that I would take something like EOS R7 over 5D II regarding sensor performance and overall performance. Anyways, leaving EOS M6 II with "the same sensor" as R7 for Nikon Z. There are nice deals around these days.

 

[crashpc]

For undemanding purposes/viewing, even ISO 51200 is doable with less than modern sensor (non BSI, non stacked). These are just some random test shots from such sensor (Nikon Z5, rooting back to Nikon D600 times) without any composition efforts:

ISO 51200 Nikon Z5

ISO 51200 Nikon Z5

ISO 51200 Nikon Z5

ISO 51200 Nikon Z5

 

[PhotoTeach2]

I've recently rekindled my interest in photography so I dug out the trusty old work horse... my Canon 5Dii. It's still fine for a lot of what I do but I think id like to come in to more current times and go mirrorless but I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos? As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance. Not really interested in stacked full frame info as I'm pretty positive there's no comparison really. Just trying to gather info to help me decide on which route I'd like to go in my purchase.

You are intermixing stacked vs cmos & dSLR vs ML -- both are different debates.

There is not much advantage to stacked in dSLR because it already has its "mirror" limitations that delay and slow it down.

Tbcass excellently illustrated the potential IQ technology-improvements over time since your cmos.

But, there may not be much "IQ" difference between "stacked" and (regular) "cmos".

Many consider the only advantage to stacked sensors is the 20-40fps capability, (and that can indeed be a new paradigm to action/sports photography -- but only if you want/need it).

BUT ... the technology that allows 20-40fps can be invaluable in many other aspects, including single-frame.

1.) Beginning with shorter latency-lag to the EVF,

2.) Faster AF,

3.) Shorter time between shots during bracketing and HDR, (20-40fps rate vs 5-10fps),

4.) No black-out between shots.

These all combine to be essential to me for my next camera, and I feel "stacked" sensors will soon be standard in all (new) cameras.

 

[crashpc]

It seems that in the last generations (Son anyways) quite a lot of emphasis is put on speed, and less so in the sensor output quality performance. Sony A7R IV,V, Sony A7IV seem to produce more noise than older models. Not happy about it, as I do not shoot bursts...

 

[RubenJ]

I've recently rekindled my interest in photography so I dug out the trusty old work horse... my Canon 5Dii. It's still fine for a lot of what I do but I think id like to come in to more current times and go mirrorless but I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos? As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance. Not really interested in stacked full frame info as I'm pretty positive there's no comparison really. Just trying to gather info to help me decide on which route I'd like to go in my purchase.

Thanks in advance for taking your time to read and reply.

You don’t need to bother clicking on the links other repliers posted. Your 5Dii is capable of outstanding image quality. Go out and shoot!

I second this. If you don't have very specific needs the 5D might serve you still very well. It's not that image quality has degraded over time, newer cameras have just become a bit better. The 5D is still very good and compares well to aps-c. I wouldn't sidegrade right now, use the 5D first and find out what you miss.

 

[GeoffRG]

Whatever camera you own, it is as good today as it was the day it was first released. Just because some other camera has a wider dynamic range or more pixels doesn't mean that you can't produce stunning images with what you have.

Again, what ever you have, it is very likely that the manufacturer has released a more recent raw converter that will give you better results than you might have become used to, from the same camera.

I cannot deny that more recent cameras can produce better results under conditions where older ones might have needs some help. They won't however produce any better results under good conditions.

A new camera can rejuvenate your interest, but only if you get the results you want. If you can still get good results from your 5D stick with it until you find it is stopping you from doing what you want.

 

[foot]

I've recently rekindled my interest in photography so I dug out the trusty old work horse... my Canon 5Dii. It's still fine for a lot of what I do but I think id like to come in to more current times and go mirrorless but I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos? As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance. Not really interested in stacked full frame info as I'm pretty positive there's no comparison really. Just trying to gather info to help me decide on which route I'd like to go in my purchase.

Thanks in advance for taking your time to read and reply.

There have been 4 major technological advances since your 5Dii was introduced.

1. On-sensor analog to digital conversion which resulted in a significant improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio (less noise).

2. Back Side Illumination (BSI) which further reduced the noise.

3. Stacked sensors which greatly speeded up sensor readout resulting in faster burst rates and less rolling shutter.

4. On-sensor PDAF/Dual Pixel autofocus which spreads focus points over a much wider area and, combined with faster processors, greatly improves the subject tracking abilities.

also the high speed readout from the sensor allows for much better AF, plus all the eye detection...people, pets, birds!

fast accurate focus is a tremendous evolution in it's own right

 

[chrisfisheye]

The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage.

The enlargment argument is not a valid argument, at least theorically. Equivalence works in every aspect and this includes sharpness. The only exception is that you have more possibilities with FF so you can optionnally use a wider aperture which means less diffraction.

Even if you use the same lens for FF and APS-C (let's consider this is a zoom), for the same picture with equivalent settings aps-c will use a lower f#. The theorical resolution per mm will be higher with APS-C and the final resolution will be similar after enlargement.

There is a difference in practice because it is more challenging to build a good lens with low f# (due to higher angle of light) while with FF you can get the same result with a higher equivalent f# which usually means higher IQ in practice This has absolutely nothing to do with enlargement... Enlargement is not the root cause. Otherwise, the small sensors we have in the smartphones would have a very very bad IQ considering the huge enlargement needed.
Personnally, this is the main reason I switched to FF recently. I did like my f/2.8 aps-c zoom lens, but I prefer a f/4 FF zoom lens, IQ can be slightly better (sharpness, vignetting,..)

 

[FingerPainter]

FingerPainter ..

Do you know where the chart in this post originally came from ???

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67053014

It was also posted on TheWanderingLens, but he did not say where it originated either.

Sorry, Joe, I have no idea.

It seems up to date since it includes the Z9 (w/ shortest read/write time).

Almost up to date. No Z8.